very blue. doesn't feel like an "oil war". maybe it's the blue/white border combo. You've got a lot going on here. I think it would help a lot if you take out the terrain landscape, and go with solid colors. Really though - you've got to simply this, somehow. Maybe instead of having an army circle AND a bonus symbol on a tert, combine the two. Have the army digits ontop of the bonus symbol - if it's possible.

Also, you don't identify the call-out box maps.. well, barely. It took me a long time to figure out what regions they were zoomed from.

I know you won't want to hear this from me, rask, but honestly there is way too much going on in such a small space. It's a combo of the terrain + the omnipresence of blue and white + the symbols. I'm not sure if the terrain should be the first thing to go, since I like it and it adds to the satellite image feel of the map. Elijiah's simple inversion did a lot to help the overwhelming nature of the map at first sight, but when one tries to study it more, there's still too much going on with icons.

I suggest we deal first with gameplay, and then with graphics, as the former really will affect the latter a lot.

Let me summarise here the gameplay idea and see how it can be improved.

1. We have 8 starting points - each capital of a major country / alliance.

2. Basic bonuses: 1 army per 3 territories (3 minimum to start), plus 1 army per each 2 territories owned within one country /alliance. +3 self-deploy on capitals.

3. Four of them are large enough to accomodate 10 territories each, four others, only 6.

4. To even out gameplay, the following is suggested:

a) each of the four smaller countries gets one metropolis, with a +2 self-deploy.

b) neutral armies are spread out in such a way that large countries have five territories with 1 neutral army each, while each metropolis has 5 neutrals each. This means each country would need to take 5 neutrals to get a +6 bonus, in addition to the +3 capital self-deploy. In my opinion this balances the game quite well.

c) Most other territories get +4 neutral on them (4 such per major country).

5. The total number of territories for the eight countries is 4 times 10 plus 4 times 6: 64.

6. The aim of the game is to illustrate the fight for Central Asia, with its number of refineries and tankers. Central Asia has 17 territories divided into:

a) seven one-territory countries; and

b)one ten-terrory country, KAzakhstan. Only it has a capital, Astana, with a +3 self-deploy. All territories are +4 neutral, except Astana, which is +6.

The aim is to try to push the players to go for Central Asia and the win objective, as opposed to just eliminate one another.

So we are now at 81 territories.

This is the basic map and gameplay.

7. Additional features:

a) Refineries: these act as bonus-generating tools. There are 24 refineries. Each group of 3 gives a +2 bonus. They are not independent territories, but part of the underlying ones.

b) Tankers: these illustrate oil tranport and have 2 purposes:

1. bonus generators: +1 for every 2; and

2. communcators: all fleets in a given area (Caspian, Black Sea / Med, and Persian Gulf / Indian Ocean) connect with each other and allow for more varied attack options between players than the traditional territories.

15 Tankers which are separate territories and connect only with their own unerlying territory (as well as with each other)

Well, I'd say there are a few areas where you could cut down the number of territories.

Ukraine, Iran & Afghanistan could each lose a few territories. Things are a bit cluttered in all of them. Maybe southern Khazakhstan too.

Also, you're going to need to identify the bonus areas somehow. Currently nowhere on the map are the bonus area names said. There are people who are not too familiar with the area, even if they know the geography, and they can't be expected to memorize the name & location of each country just to play the map. I suggest a small minimap somewhere - north africa could work if you put it on top of Cairo, also simplify Turkey & the Jerusalem area so that you can move Jerusalem away from Africa.

The revolts: do they give a negative bonus, or do the territories lose troops each turn? If it's a territory decay it could work, otherwise I don't see much point to them...

The US fleets.. why are there 2 of them, when they both can be accessed from the same territories? Seems a bit redundant. Since they both are also killer neutrals, no one is going to put a huge stack on them to keep them occupied, so one fleet should be enough.

Actually... since the terrorist can already assault each other, and they can bombard the same territories the US fleets can (refineries & tankers), why would anyone bother going for the fleets? You need some incentive. Perhaps make terrorists bombard refineries and US fleets bombard tankers?

Well that's all from me for now... hope you find something useful from my post

natty_dread wrote:Well, I'd say there are a few areas where you could cut down the number of territories.

Ukraine, Iran & Afghanistan could each lose a few territories. Things are a bit cluttered in all of them. Maybe southern Khazakhstan too.

For Ukraine, what we could do is change from Ukraine to Eastern Europe, transform the 5 Ukrainian territories into 2 (one is currently Belarusia), and add Moldavia, Rumania (with a refinery - actually existing in reality) and Bulgaria. The afvantage of this would be that the new region would also connect with Turkey, whilst now its only contact is with Russia.

For Afpak, pretty much all we can do to simplify is to merge two Cashmir territories, give the new one to Afpak, and merge two existing Afpak territories.

Iran and Turkey are small, but they only have 6 territories each and they are quite clear, I think.

The Middle East Alliance has 11 territories. We could take Jerusalem completely out of play (like Nepal) and thus simplify the area.

Also, you're going to need to identify the bonus areas somehow. Currently nowhere on the map are the bonus area names said. There are people who are not too familiar with the area, even if they know the geography, and they can't be expected to memorize the name & location of each country just to play the map. I suggest a small minimap somewhere - north africa could work if you put it on top of Cairo, also simplify Turkey & the Jerusalem area so that you can move Jerusalem away from Africa.

There are no bonuses given for specific areas. Bonuses are given for each 2 territories owned in the same country/alliance, as indicated by colors on map. Players don't need to know the name of any country - just how many territories they own in each. There are no fixed bonuses for owning a country, which differ from country to country. It's the same for all: 1 unit for each 2 territory owned within any and all countries.

The revolts: do they give a negative bonus, or do the territories lose troops each turn? If it's a territory decay it could work, otherwise I don't see much point to them...

The territories lose troops each turn, down to a minimum of 1. So yes, it's a territory decay.

The US fleets.. why are there 2 of them, when they both can be accessed from the same territories? Seems a bit redundant. Since they both are also killer neutrals, no one is going to put a huge stack on them to keep them occupied, so one fleet should be enough.

Actually... since the terrorist can already assault each other, and they can bombard the same territories the US fleets can (refineries & tankers), why would anyone bother going for the fleets? You need some incentive. Perhaps make terrorists bombard refineries and US fleets bombard tankers?

Yes , we could have terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombard all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombard all tankers.

Well that's all from me for now... hope you find something useful from my post

Thanks for your comments. I will wait to see what others have to say before making any changes.

There are no bonuses given for specific areas. Bonuses are given for each 2 territories owned in the same country/alliance, as indicated by colors on map. Players don't need to know the name of any country - just how many territories they own in each. There are no fixed bonuses for owning a country, which differ from country to country. It's the same for all: 1 unit for each 2 territory owned within any and all countries.

I realize this, but people still should know the name of the bonus areas - think about team games, how will you tell your teammate "take that blue bonus... not not that blue bonus, the other blue bonus..." or when you're negotiating a truce in a singles game...

Bonus area names are necessary for smooth gameplay, even if they don't have specific bonuses. Look at maps like Feudal or New world, bonus areas are named even in them. A small & simple minimap like the one in Feudal is all I ask.

Rashkolnikov wrote:The Middle East Alliance has 11 territories. We could take Jerusalem completely out of play (like Nepal) and thus simplify the area.

That'd be nice. Jerusalem's awkward troop number placement is one of the most annoying. If you do that, though, be sure to connect Cairo to the rest of the map somehow, either by sea route or by tanker (the latter would be either interesting or awkward since there are no other Mediterranean tankers in the region).

While I'm on the subject of awkward placement: It's not enough for icons to touch the label of their territory; if they aren't on the territory itself, it's confusing to look at. That's true in Istanbul, it's true in Abu Dhabi, it's true with the Krasnodar fleet, and especially the Ajana fleet. In these cases there's just no room for more than one territory in that region; I recommend just scrapping those fleets. Maybe put a fleet in Izmir to give one to Turkey.

The territories lose troops each turn, down to a minimum of 1. So yes, it's a territory decay.

I think even then, the revolt territories are one of the least necessary features gameplay-wise, and since you're (hopefully) trying to simplify the gameplay, the revolts should be first to get cut.

Yes , we could have terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombard all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombard all tankers.

Another way to differentiate the fleets would be to have them only be able to bombard tankers in the same sea. That would kind of make sense.Perhaps also only have terrorists bombard refineries within the same region? That way they give more of a sense of local resistance.Then again, that wouldn't come into effect very much since probably most of the refineries that have terrorists in their region actually border that terrorist territory.

The bonuses for Arunachal and Kashmir are not particularly interesting; because of the build-a-bonus system, it's not likely that a player is going to hold either all of China or all of India. It might work better to say that those territories count for either country.

Finally, you'll want to either make the metropolis auto-deploy bigger or the neutral smaller, since most of the metropolises are so out of the way that just a 2-troop auto probably won't affect much.

Rashkolnikov wrote:The Middle East Alliance has 11 territories. We could take Jerusalem completely out of play (like Nepal) and thus simplify the area.

That'd be nice. Jerusalem's awkward troop number placement is one of the most annoying. If you do that, though, be sure to connect Cairo to the rest of the map somehow, either by sea route or by tanker (the latter would be either interesting or awkward since there are no other Mediterranean tankers in the region).

Yes, that's an issue. Maybe we can keep Jerusalem, combine Beirut and Damascus, and move the Jerusalem label up.

While I'm on the subject of awkward placement: It's not enough for icons to touch the label of their territory; if they aren't on the territory itself, it's confusing to look at. That's true in Istanbul, it's true in Abu Dhabi, it's true with the Krasnodar fleet, and especially the Ajana fleet. In these cases there's just no room for more than one territory in that region; I recommend just scrapping those fleets. Maybe put a fleet in Izmir to give one to Turkey.

I can easily see reducing tankers from 15 to 9 - 3 per region, which would then eliminate the ones you mention.

The territories lose troops each turn, down to a minimum of 1. So yes, it's a territory decay.

I think even then, the revolt territories are one of the least necessary features gameplay-wise, and since you're (hopefully) trying to simplify the gameplay, the revolts should be first to get cut.

Well they do add a degree of realism to the game... Also revolts are not separate territories, like tankers, but just a characteristic of existing territories. The fire symbols can easily be removed towards the end of the process, if they still are a sticking point.

Yes , we could have terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombard all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombard all tankers.

Another way to differentiate the fleets would be to have them only be able to bombard tankers in the same sea. That would kind of make sense.Perhaps also only have terrorists bombard refineries within the same region? That way they give more of a sense of local resistance.Then again, that wouldn't come into effect very much since probably most of the refineries that have terrorists in their region actually border that terrorist territory.

If we reduce tankers from 15 to 9, that would give US fleets a really limited number of targets. I still think we can try my proposal above: terrorists bombard refineries only, the US 5th Fleet bombards all terrorists, and US 6th Fleet bombards all tankers.

The bonuses for Arunachal and Kashmir are not particularly interesting; because of the build-a-bonus system, it's not likely that a player is going to hold either all of China or all of India. It might work better to say that those territories count for either country.Yes, I agree. One Kashmir would go to China, two others would be combined and given to Afpak and two existing Afpak territories combined to make the region less crowded, and Arunchal would go to India. Instead of the Cashmir window in the legend, we could put there the mini-map natty was asking for.

Finally, you'll want to either make the metropolis auto-deploy bigger or the neutral smaller, since most of the metropolises are so out of the way that just a 2-troop auto probably won't affect much.

Yes, we can reduce the metropolis neutrals to 3 instead of 5 if you think it makes better sense.

suggestionWhy not have a single Caspian Sea/Black Sea/Med. Sea/ Arabian Sea/ Territory?

how it will astly improve things:Graphically, it will take less room and you can use the tanker symbol.

Make it a killer neutral so the seas don't act like regular territories.

Every seaside port can attack other sea side ports anyway. Putting a sea territory instead of 9 tanker territories will clear the region of unreadable debris and still maintain gameplay. You'll lose your tanker bonus, but really, no one regards Panama and Liberia as world powers because they command 1/3 the tanker fleet in the world. So it was kind of a unrealistic bonus anyway.

I would still keep the US 5th and 6th Fleets, as follows: Can be one-way attacked by any capital; are killer neutral; Sixth fleet can attack all refineries; 5th fleet can attack all terrorists.

In terms of territories:

Merge L'iv into Kyiv; Merge Dnipropetrovsk into Odessa; create Bucharest (coverning Romania and Moldavia) and Sofia (covering Bulgaria). This will keep Eastern Europe at 6 territories, but would make for larger territories and would connect Eastern Europe to Turkey.

Merge Beirut into Damas;

Merge Gilgit into Strinagar and give it to India;

Give Aksai to China;

Give Arunachal to India;

Eliminate Kashmir and Arunachal bonuses;

Split Aksu in 2 so China will have 10 territories.

The four Metropolises for the four 6 territory countries will be: Bucharest, Istanbul, Mashhad and Lahore, with 3 neutrals on each to start.

We eliminate the pipelines.

Revolts and terrorists stay as is.

Refineries can go down from 24 to 17, with the following being eliminated: Dniepopetrovsk, Istanbul, Makhachakala, Samara, Ashgabat, Shymkent, Altai (bonus armies: +2 for first 3, +1 for every subsequent 2)

This will bring us to : four countries of 6 territories; four countries of 10 territories; 17 Central Asian territories; 4 Sea territories; 2 fleets - for a total of 87 territories - 12 less than originally planned.

Since the Kashmir bonus will dissappear and the area simplified, the Kashmir insert at the bottom right will be replaced by a mini-map, with the following names:

On the main map, Kazachstan's border should be shown as a thicker white line, since it has 10 territories and gives the 1 bonus army for every 2 territories conquered within its borders. The other 7 Central Asian countries which are all separate territories give no such bonus.

A key question to decide is: should we give bonuses for holding an entire country? At this stage, I am still enclined not to. Let's see how the second version looks like and we can then decide. If yes, it would be easy to add the bonus numbers on the mini-map.

Natty, Evil, Helix, if you all agree with this, maybe pamoa, once he finishes moving and has some time next month, can take a stab at a second version of the map - and also take into consideration the color suggestions made above.

Thank you all for your suggestions and advice. And especially to pamoa who really does all the work!

natty_dread wrote:I realize this, but people still should know the name of the bonus areas - think about team games, how will you tell your teammate "take that blue bonus... not not that blue bonus, the other blue bonus..." or when you're negotiating a truce in a singles game...

Bonus area names are necessary for smooth gameplay, even if they don't have specific bonuses. Look at maps like Feudal or New world, bonus areas are named even in them. A small & simple minimap like the one in Feudal is all I ask.

I don't think this is really necessary. It's not difficult to describe the different regions, and they will most likely be given names on the game log whenever they give a bonus. A minimap that only exists to give names to the regions would be a waste of space, in my opinion.

Two, if you're going to have different functions for the two U.S. fleets, give one of them a more distinguishable name. Maybe rename the one that bombards terrorists "U.S. Special Forces" or something.

Evil DIMwit wrote:I don't think this is really necessary. It's not difficult to describe the different regions, and they will most likely be given names on the game log whenever they give a bonus. A minimap that only exists to give names to the regions would be a waste of space, in my opinion.

The XML can be made to tell what they are, sure, but only after you own at least 2 territories in that area. It's not a waste of space at all. Anything that helps people to grasp the gameplay and map dynamics better is not a waste. This is a complex map, and anything that helps navigating it should not be overlooked.

Well I like pamoa am not a believer in small maps. That being said, since the Cashmir insert will disppear, there is no harm having one in that space to clearly indentify countries, like some of you wish. Especially since pamoa kindly said he would not mind doing it. So let's try and see. And, if we decide to add country bonuses, this will come in handy.

Well that's what the CC spreadsheet ordered given existent attacking and defending territories for each and nr of neighbours. And yes, they are very high. Which is why i think they would destabilise the game.

If we raise the divider by 50 per cent, from 6 to 9, this is what we get:

I am very happy to let everyone know that ender512 has kindly agreed to partner up with us on the xml side. As long as we get gameplay and graphics right, I now know xml and numbers placement will be perfect. Welcome to the team, ender!

The proposed changes sound great, but I think the key is whether or not they look great in the new version of the map.

My biggest disapproval (though not a deal-breaker) is the continued use of the US fleets... which I don't understand. Maybe it will look better with a more streamlined map. I dunno, I can be convinced.

1. Terrorists cannot attack each other.2. Fifth Fleet can attack all terrorists and turns to 3 neutral after each round.3. Kuwait is merged into Iraq.4. Sixth Fleet becomes the starting point (capital) for the Middle East Alliance and links to Cairo (the metropolis). Ryiad is no longer the Middle East capital.

This maintains both fleets, gives each an entirely different role, the role of the US is empasised, and its more difficult to conquer all terrorists since they can't attack each other any longer, and a tiny territory is eliminated, reducing the oerall territory number to 86.

Well if you look at the countries concerned, most rely on the US for their security and are largely pro-US (Syria excepted). In terms of power projection, it makes sense. Plus it it a good way to make the US an integral part of the game, rather than a side-show, which totally represents reality. But yes, we can look at it once the second draft is done and re-evaluate the entire idea then.